6 


MARKS  IN 
S. 


LIBRA  HY 

OF   THt 

UN1VER.S  ITY 

or    1LL1  NOIS 


379.121 
Ed97s 


|\ 


ituRou  roiweAtsWY 


STtftBgHftlSHBlQB 


OF   THE 


REMARKS 


OF 


MR.    EDWARDS,    OF   ILLINOIS, 


is  rat 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


ON    THE 


jlesolution  that  "appropriations  of  Territory  for  the  purposes  of  Educa- 
tion should  he  made  to  those  States  in  whose  favour  no  such  appro- 
priations have  bten  made,  corresponding  in  just  proportion  •«  i*h 
those  heretofore  made  to  other  States  in  the  Union," 


city  ov  Washington: 


PRIMED    BY    EDWARD    DE    KRAFFT 


1822. 


37/./2J 

7s 


v. 


THE  SUBSTANCE 

OF  THE 

REMARKS  OF  MR.  EWDARDS, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 

iN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
On  the  following  resolution,  viz: 

"  Resolved,  That  appropriations  of  territory,  for  the  purposes  of  Edu. 
oathem,  should  be  made  to  those  states,  in  whose  favour  no  such  appropriations 
have  been  made,  corresponding  m  just  proportion  with  those  heretofore  made 
to  other  states  in  the  Union." 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  Edwards,  notwith- 
standing that  any  opposition  to  the  resolution  upon 
your  table,  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of  the 
new  states,  has  been  denounced  as  "  disreputable 
to  their  characters  for  honesty  and  justice,"  not  only 
by  many  of  our  most  distinguished  and  patriotic  pub- 
lic journals,  but  also  by  one  of  the  most  respectable 
states  of  the  Union;  yet,  sir,  a  sense  of  duty  will 
not  permit  me  to  decline  an  investigation  of  the  sub- 
ject, hopeless  as  it  may  be,  to  oppose  my  feeble  ef- 
forts to  the  transcendent  abilities  with  which  the 
proposition  under  consideration  has  been  support- 
ed; and  unpleasant  as  it  is,  to  subject  myself  to  im- 
putations which  the  zeal  of  many  of  its  ablest  ad- 
^  vocates  affords  me  but  little  prospect  of  escaping. 

\  ■  I  shall,  however,  carefully  endeavour  to  follow  the 
example  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  who  has  just 

^  resumed  his  seat,  (Mr.  Lloyd)  in  treating  the  sub- 

-  ject  with  such  deference  to  the  feelings  of  others,  as 
s  to  furnish  no  ground  of  exception  to  any  gentleman 

^  with  whom  it  may  be  my  misfortune  to  differ  in  opi- 
nion. And  permit  me  to  say,  sir,  that,  equally  with 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  appreciating  the  ad- 
-  vantages  of  education,  regarding  it  as  a  most  effi- 
cient means  of  increasing  the  virtue,  knowledge, 
and  happiness  of  mankind;  and  of  imparting  addi- 


tional  moral  power,  stability  and  embellishment  tor 
our  republican  institutions,  it  would  afford  me  the  sin- 
cerest  gratification  to  unite  with  him  in  any  just  and 
proper  measure  for  the  advancement  of  that  import- 
ant object.  But,  sir,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  doubtful, 
at  least,  whether  Congress  can  rightfully  adopt,  for 
that  purpose,  the  measure  now  under  consideration. 

The  appropriation  which  we  are  asked  to  make, 
is  avowed  to  be  for  a  mere  state  purpose,  and  in 
that  point  of  view,  I  shall  proceed  to  consider  it, 
under  every  modification  of  which  it  is  susceptible. 
The  question  then  is,  can  the  resources  of  this  na- 
tion be  thus  applied?  This  should  be  tested  by 
principle,  rather  than  by  the  ¥  precedents  upon  pre- 
cedents" referred  to  and  relied  upon  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Maryland,  for  this  government  is  much 
too  young  to  acknowledge  the  force  of  any  prece- 
dents, not  founded  upon,  and  much  less  of  those 
which  are  in  opposition  to,  principle,  and  gentlemen 
who  are  disposed  to  avail  themselves  of  an  argu- 
ment deduced  from  mere  precedents,  in  the  present 
case,  ought  to  recollect  how  little  inclined  they 
would  be  to  respect  such  authority,  in  a  variety  of 
other  cases,  that  might  be  referred  to. 

In  discussing  this  subject,  said  Mr.  E.  I  may,  I 
presume,  safely  premise,  that,  the  duties,  powers, 
and  objects  of  the  federal  and  state  governments  are 
separate  and  distinct;  and  that  the  success  of  our 
whole  governmental  experiment,  and  the  prosperity 
and  happiness  of  this  nation,  depend  upon  the  fide- 
lity and  wisdom,  with  which  those  governments  re- 
spectively, discharge  their  appropriate  functions. 
Each  government  has,  for  those  important  purposes, 
and  as  necessary  thereto,  its  own  particular  re- 
sources, which  cannot  be  yielded  up,  or  misapplied 
without  impairing  its  capacity  to  fulfil  the  objects 
of  its  institutions;  for  nothing  could  be  more  nuga- 
tory, than  a  grant  of  powers  without  the  means  of 
executing  them.    The  resources  of  this  government 


5 

are  found  from  experience  to  be,  at  this  time,  inade- 
quate to  its  wants,  any  measure  therefore,  whose 
tendency  would  be,  further  to  embarrass  and  crip- 
ple its  operations,  must  be  deemed  highly  inexpedi- 
ent, at  least. 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  the  gentleman  from 
Maryland  appears  to  have  reviewed,  with  critical 
accuracy,  all  the  events  connected  with  the  acquisi- 
tion of  the  national  domain,  and  he  has  with  great 
perspicuity  traced  out  the  origin,  and  demonstrated 
the  validity  of  our  title  to  it.  But,  sir,  whether  it 
has  been  acquired  by  conquest;  cessions  from  parti- 
cular states;  or  purchases  from  foreign  powers;  one 
thing  is  undeniable — it  has  doubtless  been  acquired 
by,  and  exclusively  belongs  to,  the  Confederation, 
or  Union.  It  must,  therefore,  be  considered  as 
national  and  not  state  property,  and  by  fair  infer- 
ence is  applicable  only  to  national  and  not  state 
objects.  It  is  true,  as  contended  by  the  honorable 
gentleman,  that  it  is  a  common  fund  in  which  all 
the  states  are  interested.  So,  sir,  is  the  revenue, 
and  every  other  species  of  property  belonging  to 
the  United  States,  in  relation  to  all  of  which,  the 
interest  of  the  states  is  precisely  the  same.  Being 
a  common  fund,  applicable  to  the  use  and  support 
of  the  general  government,  the  states  can  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  it,  only,  in  its  just,  and  legitimate  applica- 
tion to  national  purposes.  I  hold  it,  therefore,  that 
no  state  can  rightfully  claim,  and  of  course  to  none 
can  be  granted,  the  separate  and  distinct  use  and 
enjoyment  of  the  property,  or  funds  of  the  nation, 
in  consequence  of  a  right  to  a  common  participation 
therein. 

Independent,  however,  said  Mr.  E.  of  these  ge- 
neral considerations,  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
measure  is,  I  think,  forbidden  by  a  just  regard  to 
the  positive  stipulations  of  the  United  States,  with 
the  states  which  ceded  the  public  domain  on  the 
past  side  of  the  Mississippi  river.     Let  us,  said  he. 


for  a  moment,  attend  to  the  circumstances  under 
which  those  cessions  were  made,  which  have  been 
so  eloquently  narrated,  and  commented  upon  by 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland. 

During  our  revolutionary  struggle,  which  even- 
tuated, so  happily,  in  the  establishment  of  our  li- 
berty and  independence,  the  pecuniary  resources  of 
the  nation  had  been  exhausted;  and  at  the  close  of 
the  contest,  it  found  itself  loaded  with  a  heavy  debt, 
incurred  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  which  it  had 
not  the.  means  of  discharging;  but  which,  every  dic- 
tate of  justice,  honor,  and  gratitude  required  should 
be  provided  for,   at  the  earliest  practicable  period, 
by  every  means  which  the  nation  could  command. 
Several  of  the  states  claimed  large  tracts  of  waste, 
and  unappropriated  territory  in  the  western  coun- 
try, as  being  within  their  chartered  limits.     These 
claims  had  long  been  the  subject  of  much  animated, 
and  sometimes,  irritating  discussion,  as  is  sufficient- 
ly obvious,  from  the  authorities  read  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Maryland.     The  states   which   had   no 
part  in  those  lands,   had  earnestly  insisted  that  if 
the  dominion  over  them,  should  be  established  by 
the  common  force  and  treasure  of  the  United  States, 
they  ought  to  be  appropriated  as  a  common  fund 
for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  war.     Congress 
appealing  to  the  generosity,  magnanimity,  and  pa- 
triotism of  the  states  having  those  claims,  had  re- 
commended, and  solicited  liberal  cessions  of  a  por- 
tion of  them,  for  the  same  purpose — promising  as 
inducements  thereto,  by  the  very  resolution  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  lias  read  to  you,  that  all 
the  lands  which  might  be  so  ceded,  or  relinquish- 
ed, should  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of 
the   United  States;  that  they  should  be  settled  and 
farmed  into  distinct  republican  states,  which  should 
be  admitted  into  the  federal  Union;  and  that  the  re- 
gulations for  granting,  and  for  settling  those  lands. 
should  be  prescribed  by  Congress. 


The  states  thus  appealed  to,  yielding,  at  length, 
to  a  laudable  spirit  of  harmony,  and  conciliation, 
made  the  cessions  which  had  been  requested  of 
them — not,  however,  without  stipulating,  very  ex- 
plicitly, that  those  lands  should  be  considered  as  a 
common  fund  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Union, 
as  it  then  was,  or  thereafter  might  be:  vu\  that  they 
should  be  faithfully,  and  bona  tide  disposed  of  for 
that  common  purpose,  (f  and  for  no  other  use  or 
purpose  whatsoever.9' 

The  United  States,  therefore,  having  solicited, 
and  accepted  of  the  cessions  upon  such  terms — un- 
der such  circumstances — having  bound  themselves 
by  solemn  compact,  to  dispose  of  those  lands  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  Union — " and  for  no  other 
vse  or  purpose  whatsoever,"  Congress  cannot  now, 
I  think,  consistently  with  good  faith,  and  honor, 
disregard  those  solemn  engagements,  by  withdraw- 
ing the  whole,  or  any  part  of  the  fund  so  surren- 
dered, from  the  use  of  the  Union,  and  appropriat- 
ing it  to  tkat  of  any  one  or  more  states. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  the  stipulations  of  the  United 
States  embrace  the  whole  of  those  lands.  If,  then, 
you  can  withdraw  any  part  of  them,  from  the  use, 
for  which  they  were  specially  solicited,  ceded,  and 
accepted,  where,  1  beg  leave  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland,  is  the  limit  to  your  power  over 
them  ?  Why  may  you  not  as  well  make  partition 
of  the  whole  of  them,  among  the  several  states  of 
the  Union  ?  And  how  then  would  you  fulfil  the 
stipulations  of  the  United  States?  First;  that  the 
regulations  for  granting  and  for  settling  those 
lands  should  be  prescribed  by  Congress.  Secondly; 
that  they  should  be  settled— and,  thirdly,  that  being 
settled,  they  should  be  formed  into  distinct  republi- 
can states,  and  admitted  into  the  federal  Union.  It 
cannot  be  contended  that  we  are  competent  to  dele- 
gate powers  for  snch  purposes  to  the  states,  for  if 
that  be  the  case,  there  are  no  powers  with  which 


we  arc  invested,  that  might  not  with  equal  proptiei 
ty.  be  transferred. 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  it  is  no  answer  to 
these  objections  to  contend,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Maryland  seems  to  do,  that  the  claims  of  the  red- 
ing states  were  not  just  and  valid,  for  however  de- 
fective they  may  have  been  originally,  the  United 
States,  by  accepting  of  the  cessions  upon  special 
conditions,  must  be  considered  as  having  admitted 
the  right,  and  bound  themselves  to  comply  with  the 
conditions;  otherwise  there  could  be  no  faith  and 
confidence  reposed  in  any  adjustment,  arrangement 
or  contract  with  government.  [Here  Mr.  Lloyd 
rose  and  explained  the  remarks  he  had  made;  and 
having  resumed  his  seat,  Mr.  E.  again  proceeded.] 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  in  consequence  of 
the  explanations  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  J 
shall  forbear  the  remarks  I  had  intended  to  make 
upon  this  part  of  the  subject.  But,  sir,  said  he,  let 
it  even  be  admitted  that  the  claims  of  those  states 
were  wholly  defective — that  they  had  never  made 
any  cessions  whatever — that  the  United  States  had 
never  entered  into  any  stipulations  in  relation  to 
the  subject — and  that  the  public  domain  had  actu- 
ally been  conquered  by  the  united  valour  of  all  the 
states — still  it  would  have  been  an  acquisition, 
made,  not  in  their  state — but  in  their  federal  cha- 
racter, in  which  latter  character  only,  could  they 
participate  in  the  use,  and  benefits  of  it.  For  be- 
ing a  federal  acquisition,  it  could  not,  without  a  to- 
tal prostration  of  our  whole  system  of  government, 
be  annihilated  as  such,  by  being  partitioned  out,  in 
due  proportion,  among  the  several  states  of  the 
Union.  Where,  sir,  is  delegated  the  power,  that 
is  competent  to  make  such  a  division  either  of  the 
whole,  or  a  part  ?  The  state  governments  most  as- 
suredly, have  no  controul  over  the  subject;  and 
surely,  those  to  whom  the  powers  of  the  federal 
government  are  entrusted,  never  could,  rightfully 
annihilate  its  own  resources,  for  any  such  purpose. 


n 

If  however,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  is 
correct  in  the  opinions,  which  he  has  supported 
willi  equal  zeal  and  ability,  then  indeed,  sir.  may 
the  states  rightfully  claim,  and  Congress  rightfully 
pant  partition  of  all  the  territory,  purchased  of 
France  and  Spain  Mith  the  common  funds  of  the 
nation,  to  he  appropriated  to  ofjects,  to  which  the 
powers  of  federal  legislation  are  not  pretended  to 
extend.  Then  indeed,  sir,  may  tLi  revenue,  and 
every  giber  species  of  property  belonging  to  the 
Uniied  Stales,  receive  a  similar  destination:  for 
they  all  constitute  "the  common  funds  of  the  na- 
tion. ''  iu  which  the  states  are  interested;  and  the 
powers,  and  objects  of  appropriation  as  granted  to 
Congress,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
are  equally  precise,  defined,  and  limited,  in  relation 
to  all  the  funds  of  the  nation,  without  discrimination. 

In  the  specification  of  those  powers,  said  Mr.  E. 
there  is  none,  either  expressed,  or  implied,  to  war- 
rant the  appropriation  now  asked  for.     It  cannot 
be  inferred  from  the   general  power,   to  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  for  disposing  of  the 
territory  and  other  property  of  the  United  States, 
for  candour  must  admit,  that  the  plain  and  natural 
inference  from  this  grant  of  power  is,  that  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Union,  should  be  disposed  of  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  Union — and  that  too,  in  strict 
conformity  with  the  legitimate  powers  of  federal  le- 
gislation; and   solely,  in  aid  of  the  great  objects 
thereof.     If,  then,   the  states  respectively,  have  no 
right  to  the  separate,  and  distinct  use  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  common  property,  and  funds  of  the  na- 
tion, whence  do  we  dt  rive  the  power  to  confer  such 
a  right  upon  them  ?  And  if  the  controul  over  those 
funds  be  intrusted  to  the  federal  legislature,  for 
national,  and  not  for  state  purposes,  I  beg  leave 
also,  seriously  to  ask  gentlemen,   whether  we  can 
appropriate  them  to  the  latter,  without  a  most  pal- 
pable violation  of  the  trust  confided  to  us  ? 
2 


10 

hi  addition  to  all  these  objections,  said  Mr.  K. 
there  is  one  more,  which  cannot  he  disregarded,  so 
lone;  as  we  retain  I  he  slightest  respect  for  the  ju-t 
and  lawful  ads  of  our  predecessors;  or  consider 
(he  high  character  for  justice,  honor,  and  good  faith. 
Which  (his  government  has  hitherto,  so  justly,  ac- 
quired and  maintained,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
as  worth  preserving. 

The  first  Congress^  composed  principally  of  tlie 
venerable,  sages,  and  patriots  of  the  revolution,  duly 
considering  the  purposes  for  which  the  public  lands 
had  been  ceded,  and  disposed  fairly  to  fulfil  the 
Stipulations  of  the  United  States  in  relation  to  them, 
by  the  act  of  1790,  solemnly  pledged,  not  only 
those,  but  all  other  lands,  which  the  United  Sta***^ 
Blight  thereafter  acquire,  for  the  payment  of  the 
public  debts;  expressly  declaring,  that  they  should 
be  applied  solely  to  that  use,  until  those  debts 
should  he  fullv  satisfied. 

T5y  the  act  of  1705,  this  pledge  is  again  repeated 
in  language  still  more  energetic,  for  the  faith  of  the 
United  States  is  therein  also  expressly  pledged, 
that  those  lands  shall  remain,  inviolably,  appropri- 
ated to  the  payment  of  those  debts,  until  the  same 
shall  be  completely  effected. 

At  various  other  periods,  between  1790  and  1817. 
inclusive,  has  this  subject  been  brought  under  the 
review  of  different  congresses,  and  as  often  has  the 
same  pledge  been  renewed.  And  thus,  has  been 
created  a  solemn  compact  between  the  United 
States,  and  the  public  creditors.  Seeing  it  then, 
supported  by  so  many  repeated  enactments,  and 
sanctioned  as  it  has  been,  to  this  day,  by  the  pub- 
lic sentiment  of  the  nation — shall  we  now  violate  it? 
Have  our  predecessors  acted  unjustly,  or  unwisely, 
in  making  it?  If  not,  we.  ourselves,  though  bound 
by  no  previous  obligations,  ought  for  the  sake  of 
justice,  to  be  willing  to  do  the  same  thing,  if  it  were 
now  to  be  acted  upon  for  the  first  time:  for  this  go- 


ii 

rem  men  t  ought  to  be  just,  before  it  pretends  to  b* 
generous,  especially  at  the  expense  of  others. 

Mr.  E.  here  read  several  sections  of  the  laws 
containing  the  pledges  referred  to,  and  contended 
that  the  faith  of  the  United  .States  being  pledged 
that  the  whole  of  the  public  lands  should  remain, 
inviolably  appropriated  to  the  payment  of  the  pub- 
lic debts;  that  they  should  be  appropriated,  solely, 
to  that  use,  until  those  debts  should  be  fully  satisfi- 
ed; and  a  vast' amount  of  them  still  remaining  un- 
paid: no  part  of  the  national  domain  could  be  right- 
fully appropriated  to  the  purposes  contemplated  by 
the  resolution  under  consideration.  And  if,  indeed, 
sir,  said  he,  we  have  on  any  former  occasions, 
through  inadvertance — or  from  other  causes,  misap- 
plied any  part  of  this  fuud,  so  far  from  furnishing 
an  argument  in  favour  of  persevering  in  a  course,  so 
unjustifiable,  I  appeal  to  the  candour  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Maryland,  as  he  done  to  mine,  to  say 
whether  it  does  not,  incontestibly,  give  to  the  public 
creditors,  an  additional  claim  upon  us  to  forbear  all 
further,  wilful  misapplications? 

But,  sir,  let  us  inquire  into  the  extent  of  the  ap- 
propriation we  are  called  upon  to  make.  Instead 
of  the  "  small  slice"  as  described,  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Maryland — it  is  to  the  enormous  amount 
of  about  ten  millions  of  acres  of  the  national  do- 
main; which,  at  the  average  price,  at  which  those 
lands  have  hitherto  been  sold,  would  produce  a  sum 
nearly  equal,  if  not  entirely  so,  to  the  whole  amount 
of  the  nett  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  public  lands,  re- 
ceived into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  dur- 
ing the  last  nineteen  or  twenty  years.  It  would  be 
needless  to  review  the  extraordinary  circumstances 
which,  in  this  period,  so  powerfully  contributed  to 
augment  the  receipts  of  the  Treasury,  from  this 
source  of  our  revenue.  Similar  causes  are  not  like- 
ly to  recur  for  many  years  lo  come;  and  calculating 
upon  the  sales  that  have  been  made  since  those 


f    ILL   L 


12 

ranges  have  censed  to  operate,  a  much  lon«rer  peri- 
od, probably  not  less  than  double  that  length  of 
time,  Would  be  requisite  to  effect  sales  to  the  same 
amount. 

What  then,  Mr.  President,  is  to  be  the  conse- 
quence of  granting  this  quantify  of  land  to  the 
states,  in  whose  favour  it  is  applied  for?  It  surely 
cannot  be,  seriously,  intended,  to  vest  the  old  states 
with  power  to  plant  colonies  of  tenants  in  the  new- 
ones.  This  would  be  impracticable — and  to  those 
states  utterly  useless.  Waving  other  important 
considerations,  which  I  forbear,  even  to  allude  to, 
the  vast  extent  of  the  national  domain,  and  the 
cheapness  of  unimproved  lands,  thank  (rod  for  it, 
afford  but  little  prospect  of  renting  snch  lands  to 
advantage,  or,  even  of  having  them  settled,  and  im- 
proved, for  the  use  of  them. 

The  object,  then,  must  be,  either  to  authorise  the 
states  to  dispose  of  the  land — or  that  this  govern- 
ment shall  become  their  auctioneer  for  that  purpose. 
The  former  would  he  transferring  to  those  states,  a 
power,  exclusively,  delegated  to  Congress — a  right 
to  do  that,  which,  according  to  the  stipulations  he- 
fore  referred  to,  can  only  be  performed  by  Congress. 
For,  I  take  it  for  granted  that,  if  you  cannot  vest 
in  the  states  the  right  to  dispose  of  their  respective 
interests  in  the  whole  of  the  public  lands,  you  can 
transfer  to  them  no  power  to  dispose  of  any  part  of 
them.  But,  sir,  supposing  there  is  nothing  solid  in 
this  objection,  what  is  to  be  the  effect  upon  your 
Treasury,  of  authorising  the  states  to  sell  the  land 
proposed  to  be  granted  to  them  ?  They  must  enter 
into  competition  with  you.  In  proportion  to  the 
extent  of  their  sales,  whatever  they  may  be,  yours 
must  be  diminished;  because  not  only  the  price,  but 
the  sale  of  land,  must  depend  upon  the  relation 
which  supply  bears  to  demand;  for  if  the  juice  be 
so  low,  and  the  supply  so  great,  that  it  ceases  to  be 
an  object  of  speculation,  there  can  be  no  motive  to 


13 

purchase  it,  but  few  cultivation.  As  the  govern- 
ment, however,  would  still  have  an  infinitely  ereat- 
er  variety  of  lands  to  select  from,  the  states  could 
not  sell  at  all,  to  any  extent,  without  underselling 
the  government.  This,  therefore,  they  must  do, 
otherwise  their  lands  would  be  of  no  use  to  them. 
Recollect,  sir,  the  millions  of  acres  which  you  have 
granted  in  military  bounties.  These  have  already 
come  into  competition  with  you  at  the  reduced  price 
of  from  twenty  to  forty  dollars  a  quarter  section, 
and  have  most  materially  curtailed  your  sales.  Add 
to  them  the  ten  millions  of  acres  now  proposed  to  be 
granted,  you  must  abolish  your  present  system  of 
sales,  and  abandon  your  minimum  price  altogether: 
or  close  up  your  land  offices  for  twenty,  thirty,  or 
forty  years  to  come. 

Take  then,  sir,  if  you  please,  the  other  alterna- 
tive, that  the  government  shall  dispose  of  the  land 
for  the  benefit  of  those  states.  To  this,  some  eea- 
tlemen  seem  to  think  there  can  be  no  objection,  be- 
cause the  Constitution  has  delegated  to  Congress 
the  power  of  disposing  of  the  property  of  the  United 
States,  though  that  power  is,  by  express  stipulation, 
and  plain  and  obvious  inference,  coupled  with  the 
positive  duty  of  disposing  of  such  property  for  the 
benefit  of  th<>  Union.  By  this  plan,  however,  the 
injurious  effects  of  competition  might  be  avoided, 
and  the  present  minimum  price  preserved.  But,  as 
has  been  already  shown,  it  would  require  some 
twenty  years,  at  least,  to  dispose  of  the  land,  though 
not  an  acre  should,  in  the  mean  time,  be  sold  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Union.  This  would  indeed,  be 
transforming  federal  into  state  agents;  abstracting 
them  from  duties,  for  whose  performance,  they  were 
solely  created;  and  devoting  them  to  a  pretty  long 
servitude,  to  mere  state  purposes.  Now,  sir,  a<N 
mitting,  we  have  a  right  to  give  away  the  land  to 
the  states,  whence  do  we  derive  the  power,  to  consti- 
tutp  ourselves,  and  our  successors  too,  their  agents 


14 

and  trustees?  Or  to  convert  this  government  into 
such  state  machinery  ? 

* 

But,  sir,  putting  the  best  possible  aspect  upon 

this  plan,  it  can  amount  to  nothing  less  than  a  vir- 
tual grant  of  money,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  public 
Treasury,  with  a  pledge  of  our  already  pledged, 
repledged,  triple,  quadruple, quintuple1  pledged  pub- 
lic lands,  for  its  payment.  Is,  then,  that  a  proper 
time,  for  making  such  an  appropriation,  when,  the 
receipts  of  the  Treasury  are  not  more  than  ade- 
quate to  the  current  expenses  of  the  government? 
When,  the  government  has  to  support  itself  by  loans 
of  five  millions  at  a  time?  And  when,  every  man 
in  the  nation,  of  ordinary  sagacity,  must  be  con- 
vinced that  we  must  soon  resort  to  a  permanent  sys- 
tem of  internal  taxation  ?  Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  it  can- 
not be  disguised  from  the  people  of  this  nation  that, 
in  proportion  as  we  misapply,  or  impair  any  of  the 
ordinary  sources  of  revenue,  additional  burdens 
must  be  imposed  upon  them.  And  can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  they  will  be  reconciled  to  an  appropria- 
tion to  such  an  amount — attended  with  such  conse- 
quences— without  even,  the  pretence  of  power  on 
the  part  of  Congress  to  enforce  its  application,  to 
the  objects  for  which  it  is  to  be  granted? 

But,  sir,  what  is  to  be  the  extent,  to  which  the 
new  doctrines  upon  which  the  present  proposition 
is  supported,  are  to  lead  us  ?  One  false  step  begets 
another.  If,  because  one  thirty-sixth  part  of  the 
national  domain  in  the  new  states,  has  been  appro- 
priated to  the  support  of  education  therein,  the 
states  in  which  there  is  no  public  land,  are  entitled 
to  an  appropriation  of  equal  amount,  as  contended 
by  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  why  may  they 
not,  with  equal  propriety,  and  justice,  claim  a  much 
larger  proportion  of  the  nett  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
public  land,  for  a  different  purpose — and  one  too, 
which  has  not  escaped  the  attention  of  the  honora- 
ble gentleman,  but  has  been  several  times  referred 


15 

in  by  him  in  the  course  of  his  remarks.  By  stipu- 
lations with  the  new  states,  one-twentieth  of  those 
proceeds  is  appropriated  to  the  making  of  roads 
in,  and  leading  to  them.  Are  not  roads,  as  well  as 
education,  equally  necessary  to  every  state  in  the 
Union  ?  And  if  you  grant  the  proposed  .appropri- 
ation for  the  support  of  education,  upon  the  princi- 
ples contended  for  by  the  gentleman  from  Mary 
land — not  asked,  as  a  favour,  but  according  to  his 
own  language,  "  demanded  as  a  right" — upon  what 
ground,  can  you  refuse  the  suggested  appropriation 
for  public  roads?  If  the  latter  be  granted,  then, 
a\  ill  not  only  this  source  of  national  revenue  be 
completely  annihilated,  but  other  sources  must  be 
rendered  tributary  to  the  states.  For  if  a  sum  equal 
to  one-twentieth  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  pub- 
lic land  is  to  be  granted  to  each  state,  then,  as  cer- 
tainly as  that  twenty  twentieths  are  the  whole,  those 
proceeds  can  only  satisfy  twenty  states,  and  the 
balance  must  be  paid  out  of  some  other  branch  of 
the  revenue. 

In  short,  sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  we  have  no 
more  right  to  grant  away  to  the  states,  the  funds, 
than  the  powers  of  this  government,  for  take 
from  it,  its  pecuniary  resources,  and  destroy  its  cha- 
racter for  good  faith,  it  would  be  idle  mockery  to 
pretend  to  talk  about  its  powers. 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  in  the  remarks  which 
I  have  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  your  considera- 
tion, I  have  attempted  to  show,  that,  upon  principle, 
the  proposition  under  consideration,  ought  not  to  be 
acceded  to.  But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, similar  donations,  have  been  made  to  the  new 
states.  Admit  it,  sir — what  then?  If  the  cases  be 
analogous,  and  my  argument  be  well  founded,  that 
also,  is  wrong.  And  can  we  derive  from  one  error 
a  just,  and  lawful  right,  to  commit  another  of  still 
greater  magnitude?  If  our  predecessors  have  violat- 
ed the  fundamental  principles  of  the  2;oA(M-ument — 


16 

disregarded  its  most  sacred  obligations— prostrated 

lis  faith — and  assumed  powers  never  delegated  to 
them — does  this  confer  upon  us  the  right  of  further 
usurpations?  If  that  be  the  case,  then,  truly,  have 
we  discovered  a  most  convenient  means  of  acquiring 
power:  ar'cr  which,  man  at  all  times  lusteth  a  little 
too  strongly.  Such  a.  principle,  however,  never  can 
be  recognized  by  this  enlightened  Senate.  The 
precedent  referred  to  therefore,  if  in  point,  I  contend 
is  destitute  of  all  authority,  because,  as  such,  it 
would  be  most  palpably  erroneous.  But  it  will  not, 
I  think,  upon  a  fair  and  candid  examination,  be 
found  to  warrant  the  argument  that  is  attempted  to 
be  drawn  from  it. 

I  shall  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  parallel  be- 
tween those  cases  does  not  run  quite  as  far  as  seems  to 
have  been  imagined  by  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, but  that  there  are  striking  diversities  in  them, 
affording  such  ground  for  an  honest  difference  of 
Opinion,  at  least,  as  requires  the  exercise  of  a  very 
moderate  portion  of  common  charity  to  believe,  that 
gentlemen  may  support  the  one,  and  oppose  the 
other,  without  intentional  injustice  or  inconsistency. 

The  one,  sir,  is  a  case  decided  upwards  of  thirty- 
six  years  ago,  by  the  gentleman's  own  showing; 
confirmed  by  repeated  subsequent  decisions;  and 
universally  acquiesced  in.  The  other  is  a  case 
purely  res  Integra,  never  before  acted  upon,  or  even 
agitated.  In  supporting  the  former,  we  are,  there- 
fore, fortified  with  the  concurring  sentiment  of  the 
nation,  and  the  positive  approbation  of  all  our  pre- 
decessors since  the  year  1785.  In  forbearing  to 
adopt  the  latter,  we  are  equally  supported  by  their 
example— and  opinion  too,  sir,  as  far  as  it  can  be 
inferred  from  their  conduct.  And  it  would  not,  I 
think,  be  a  very  modest  pretension,  on  our  own  part, 
to  claim  for  ourselves  more  wisdom  to  discern,  or 
virtue  to  execute  our  duties,  than  was  possessed  by 
so  manv  of  the  wisest  heads,  and  best  hearts,  that 


17 

ever  adorned  any  nation.  Appreciating  the  advau 
tages  of  education,  as  they  must  have  done,  and  not 
less  devoted  to  the  interests  of  their  respective  states, 
than  ourselves,  had  they  considered  those  cases  as 
presenting  equal  claims  upon  them,  they  never 
would  have  provided  for  the  one  so  promptly,  and 
have  postponed,  and  totally  neglected  the  other  so 
long.  The  gentleman  from  Maryland,  therefore, 
in  his  eloquent  apneals  to  the  magnanimity  of  the 
members  of  the  new  states,  ought  not  to  forget,  that, 
whatever  of  disapprobation  is  fairly  due  to  their 
opposition,  to  the  measure  which  he  presses  with 
so  much  ardour  and  ability,  equally  applies  to  those 
distinguished  sages  and  patriots  who  have  retired 
from  the  stage  of  public  action,  with  so  much  honor 
and  glory;  or  whose  souls  have  fled  to  another,  and 
better  world,  to  receive  the  rewards  of  the  virtues 
they  practiced  in  this. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  the  great  and  leading  distinction 
between  those  cases  is,  that  the  one  had  for  its  ob- 
ject the  common  benefit  and  advantage  of  all  the 
states,  in  their  federal  character.  The  other  is  in- 
tended for  the  particular  use  and  benefit  of  certain 
states  in  their  state  character.  The  former  was 
conformable  to  the  powers  and  objects  of  federal 
legislation,  and  consistent  with  the  stipulations  of 
the  United  States,  with  the  states  which  ceded 
their  lands,  and  can  only  be  justified  upon  such 
grounds.  The  latter  is  warranted  by  no  delegation 
of  authority  whatever,  either  expressed  or  implied, 
and  would  be  in  direct  contravention  of  those  stipu- 
lations, and,  therefore,  cannot  be  supported  at  all. 
The  one  involved  no  breach  of  engagements  with 
the  public  creditors,  since  the  pledge  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  public  lands  imposed  no  obligation  to 
change  a  mode  of  disposing  of  them,  which  had 
then  been  five  years  in  operation.  The  other  would 
be  a  most  flagrant  violation  of  the  faith  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  solemnlv  pledged  to  those  creditors. 
3 


IS 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  contends,  that 
there  has  boon  no  cotemporaneoHS  construction  to 
warrant  a  distinction  between  those  cases.  But,  sir, 
never,  perhaps,  was  there  a  case  in  which  the  evi- 
dences of  such  a  construction  were  stronger,  or  its 
authority  entitled  to  more  respect,  than  is  evinced 
by  all  the  circumstances  attending  the  cessions  of 
our  public  lands — the  mode  of  disposing  of  them 
which  was  shortly  afterwards  adopted — and  the 
constant  adherence  to  the  same  system,  from  that 
time,  to  the  present  period. 

In  the  adoption  of  this  system,  under  which  the- 
reservations  for  the  support  of  education  were  made, 
the  most  enlightened  patriots  of  the  nation,  who  had 
taken  an  active  part  in  relation  to  those  lands,  the 
states  which  insisted  that  the  cessions  ought  to  be 
made,  the  states  that  made  them,  and  Congress 
which  accepted  them,  all  concurred.  This  general 
concurrence,  therefore,  was  the  best  possible  prac- 
tical exposition  of  the  intentions  of  all  parties  in  re- 
lation to  the  manner  in  which  this  fund  might  be 
fairly,  and  justly  disposed  of  for  the  common  use 
and  benefit  of  the  Union. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  K.  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the 
states  which  had  so  strenuously  insisted  that  those 
lands  should  be  appropriated,  as  a  common  fund, 
for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  tear — the  states 
which  stipulated,  with  such  jealous  caution,  that 
they  should  be  faithfully  disposed  of  for  the  common 
use  and  benefit  of  the  Union,  and  for  no  other  use  or 
purpose  whatsoever — and  Congress  which  accepted 
of  them,  upon  that  express  condition,  should  so  soon 
afterwards  have  intended  to  make  a  partial  disposi- 
tion of  any  portion  of  them. 

Virginia,  sir,  had  made  much  the  most  important 
and  valuable  cession,  not,  however,  without  some 
apparent  hesitation  at  least.  If,  then,  the  system  of 
disposing  of  those  lands  had  been  understood  to 
contain  any  unjust  and  partial  appropriation  of  them. 


1& 

in  favour  of  any  state,  or  states  to  the  exclusion  of 
Virginia,  it  is  particularly  extraordinary,  not  only, 
that  her  wise  and  sagacious  representation,  by 
which  she  has  always  been  eminently  distinguish- 
ed,  should  have  acquiesced  in  it,  but  that,  two  years 
afterwards,  two  of  her  most  distinguished  represen- 
tatives, and  Mr.  Madison  himself,  one  of  those  two, 
should  have  united  in  a  report  to  Congress,  strongly 
recommending  the  same  system,  with  the  additional 
reservation  of  the  29th  section  of  each  township,  to 
be  given  in  perpetuity  for  religious  purposes.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  system  was  adopted 
for  the  common  benefit  and  advantage  of  all  the 
states,  and  that  it  furnishes  neither  precedent  nor 
apology,  for  an  appropriation  of  the  national  funds 
to  the  particular  use  and  benefit  of  any  state. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  it  must  be  manifest  from  this 
view  of  the  subject,  that  the  distinction  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  draw  between  those  cases,  is  support- 
ed by  the  practical  exposition  which  has  been  given 
to  all  the  cessions  of  public  land,  and  the  stipula- 
tions connected  therewith,  by  those  of  all  others  the 
best  qualified  to  interpret  them — by  the  parties 
themselves.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  forbear- 
ance of  all  of  them,  to  insist  upon,  or  any  of  them,  to 
adopt  such  a  measure  as  the  one  now  proposed, 
with  the  most  powerful  inducements  thereto,  had  it 
been  proper,  affords  the  strongest  ground  to  believe, 
that  they  considered  any  such  disposition  of  the 
national  funds,  as  wholly  inadmissible. 

Independent  however  of  the  very  high  authority 
of  a  decision  thus  given,  by  those  who  were  so  emi- 
nently qualified  to  judge  correctly  upon  the  subj»ct, 
it  is  easy  to  demonstrate,  not  only  that  the  reserva- 
tions for  the  support  of  educatiou,  were  justifiable 
upon  strict  national  principles,  but  that  even  much 
greater  encouragement  to  the  settlement  of  the  na- 
tional domain,  had  circumstances  required  it,  might 
have  been  afforded  by  the  government,  with  perfect 
fairness  and  impartial  justice. 


20 

In  vain,  sir.  would  Maryland, and  the  rest  of  the 
states,  which  originally  set  up  no  claim  to  those 
lands,  have  insisted  thai  they  should  be  appropriat- 
ed as  a  common  fund  for  defraying  the  expenses  of 

the  tear — or  the  states  that  ceded  them',  have  stipu- 
lated, that  they  should  be  disposed  of  Jot  the  com- 
mon use  and  benefit  of  the  Union — and  fruitless 
would  have  been  the  pledge  of  them  to  the  public 
creditors,  if  they  had  been  permitted  to  remain  in 
the  condition  in  which  they  were  received — waste 
and  unappropriated — the  haunts  of  ferocious  beasts 
— and  the  habitations  of  blood-thirsty  savages. 

In  this  situation,  neither  the  Union  itself,  nor  any 
state  whatever,  could  derive  any  possible  benefit 
from  them — hence,  it  became  not  less  the  interest, 
than  the  duty,  of  the  government  to  encourage  emi- 
gration to  them.  And  if  for  this  purpose,  it  had 
been  necessary  to  have  actually  given  away  a  moie- 
ty of  them  to  settlers  thereon,  according  to  the  poli- 
cy pursued  by  some  of  the  states,  in  similar  cases, 
such  a  measure  would  have  been  equally  demanded 
by  the  engagements  of  the  government,  and  the  real 
interest  of  every  state. 

But,  sir,  without  insisting  upon  what  might  have 
been  done,  it  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  to  show, 
that  the  reservations  which  have  heretofore  been 
made  for  the  support  of  education,  were  proper,  ex- 
pedient, and  just,  in  relation  to  all  the  states.  This 
I  shall  endeavour  to  do. 

The  conditions  which  the  United  States  bound 
themselves  to  perform,  in  relation  to  the  ceded  ter- 
ritory, seem  to  have  had  two  principal  objects  in 
view. 

First,  That  those  lands  should  be  rendered  avail- 
able, as  a  common  fund,  for  paying  the  debts;  de- 
fraying the  expenses:  and  advancing  the  interest  of 
the  United  States.  And,  Secondly,  That  they 
should,  at  the  same  time,  be  so  disposed  of  for  those 
purposes,  as  to  promote  the  formation  of  new  states, 


21 

within  their  limits,  to  be  admitted  into  the  federal 
Union.  Both  these  objects  equally  depending  up- 
on the  same  stipulations,  neither  could,  properly,  be 
provided  for,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  For,  as 
the  new  states  could  not,  consistently  with  the  con- 
ditions agreed  upon,  be  formed  and  admitted  into 
the  Union,  without  previously  disposing  of  a  suita- 
ble proportion  of  the  territory,  so,  neither  could  the 
territory  be  disposed  to  a  Foreign  Power,  or  in  any 
otlier  manner,  so  as  to  prevent  the  formation  of  the 
new  states.  Nor  could  any  other  measure  have 
been  correctly  adopted,  in  relation  to  one  of  those 
objects,  without  a  correspondent  regard  to  the  other. 
The  first  contemplated  a  transfer  of  the  land.  The 
second  was  intended  to  provide  the  means  of  enjoy- 
ing it,  with  the  utmost  safety,  comfort,  and  happi- 
ness. Thus  understood,  they  were  calculated,  mu- 
tually, to  aid  each  other.  The  promise,  to  establish 
distinct  republican  states,  and  to  admit  them  into 
the  Union,  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states,  in  all  respects  whatever,  as  soon  as  might  be 
practicable,  could  not  fail  to  promote  the  sale  and 
settlement  of  the  land— whilst  every  other  induce- 
ment that  could  be  afforded  to  the  latter,  would 
equally  contribute  to  hasten  the  accomplishment  of 
the  former. 

It  would,  therefore,  have  been  a  violation  of  good 
faith,  if,  in  disposing  of  the  lands,  due  regard  had 
not  been  paid  to  the  formation  of  the  new  states — 
and  a  most  culpable  neglect  of  duty,  if  all  necessary 
and  practicable  means  of  rendering  them  suitable 
and  useful  members  of  the  Union  had  not  been 
adopted.  This,  evidently,  was  the  opinion  of  the 
old  Congress,  and  hence  Ave  find  one  ordinance  for 
disposing  of  the  territory,  and  another  for  the  go- 
vernment of  its  inhabitants.  The  former,  among 
other  things,  provides  for  the  support  of  education, 
doubtless,  with  a  view  to  promote  both  of  the  objects 
referred  to.     The  latter,  contains  an  explicit  avow- 


22 

al  of  the  moral  benefits  expected  from  those  reser- 
vations; for,  in  one  of  the  six  articles,  which  are 
declared  to  be  articles  of  compact  between  the  ori- 
ginal states,  and  the  people  of  the  ceded  territory, 
unalterable,  unless  by  common  consent,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  "  that  religion,  morality,  and  knowl- 
edge, being  necessary  to  good  government,  and  the 
happiness  of  mankind,  schools,  and  the  means  of 
education,  shall  forever  be  encouraged." 

As,  then,  it  was  not  less  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
provide  for  the  establishment  of  the  new  states,  than 
to  dispose  of  the  lands,  it  may  be  considered  a  for- 
tunate circumstance,  that  those  two  objects  were  so 
well  calculated  to  harmonize  with  each  other. 
Since,  had  it  been  otherwise,  the  obligations  to  pro- 
vide for  both,  would  not  have  been  the  less  impera- 
tive. Nor  would  any  of  the  original  states  have 
had  just  cause  of  complaint,  if  the  formation  of  the 
new  ones,  had  even  required  sacrifices  on  the  part  of 
the  Union.  For  that  being  one  of  the  conditions  of 
those  grants  or  cessions,  must  be  considered  as  a 
part  of  the  consideration  thereof,  and  none  could, 
fairly,  or  honestly,  claim  the  benefit  of  the  one, 
without  contributing  in  just  proportion  to  the  other. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  do  justice  to  the  wisdom, 
foresight,  and  profound  policy,  which  dictated  the 
reservation  of  a  part  of  the  national  domain,  for  the 
support  of  education,  it  is  necessary  that  that  mea- 
sure should  be  considered  in  relation  to  both  of  the 
objects  referred  to. 

I  will  not,  Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  consume 
your  time,  by  attempting  to  demonstrate  the  general 
political  considerations  which  must  have  recom- 
mended its  adoption.  The  influence  of  education 
upon  the  happiness,  moral  power,  good  government, 
and  prosperity  of  any  community,  is  too  obvious  to 
require  illustration.  Nor,  indeed,  sir,  could  any 
one,  much  less  myself,  add  any  thing  upon  the  sub- 
ject, more  eloquent  or  convincing,  than  what  we  have 


23 

already  heard  from  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Maryland. 

Considering  the  measure,  merely,  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  the  lands,  it  derives  equal  justification 
from  the  intentions  with  which  it  must  have  been 
adopted:  and  the  success  that  has'  attended  it;  for 
it  can  neither  he  doubted,  that  it  was  intended  to 
render  those  lands  more  valuable  and  available  to 
the  Union — nor  that  it  lias  been  eminently  success- 
ful  in  producing  those  effects. 

But,  sir,  in  whatever  point  of  view  it  can  be  fairly  , 
considered,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  difficult  at  least,  to 
discern  any  principle  upon  which  it  can  be  justified 
that  can  support,  or  which  indeed  does  not  exclude 
the  claim  now  contended  for  on  the  part  of  the  ori- 
ginal states. 

That  the  encouragement  of  education,  as  a  means 
of  diffusing  useful  knowledge,  of  suppressing  vice 
and  immorality,  and  of  promoting  religion,  would, 
as  contended  by  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  be 
eminently  calculated  to  ensure  the  safety,  happi- 
ness, and  prosperity,  of  our  common  country,  is 
most  readily  admitted.  But  it  does  not  therefore 
follow,  that  we  have  a  right  to  adopt  the  proposed 
measure,  for  such  purposes.  For,  if  that  be  the 
case,  the  powers  of  Congress  must  be  admitted  to 
extend  to  all  those  objects,  and  would  equally  au- 
thorise any  other  means  calculated  to  promote  the 
same  ends. 

It  is  quite  a  familiar  axiom  in  politicks,  as  well 
as  in  law,  that  a  grant  of  power  includes  an  implied 
authority  to  adopt  the  necessary  means  of  executing 
it.  But  it  would  really  be  somewhat  novel,  I  think, 
to  contend  that  Congress  have  a  right  to  adopt  the 
means  of  promoting,  advancing,  or  providing  for 
objects,  over  which  all  power  has  been  withheld  from 
the  federal  government,  and  retained,  exclusively, 
to  the  states.  And  I  trust,  sir,  that  the  republicans 
nf  the  school  of  1798,  now  dominant,  are  not  them- 


21 

lyes  about  to  revive  the  exploded  doctrine  of  a 
general,  undefined,  power  in  congress  to  provide  for 
the  general  welfare.  No,  sir,  recent  demonstra- 
tions of  increasing  vigilance  over  state  rights,  and 
strong  indications  of  a  jealousy  of  federal  encroach- 
ments |  alluding  to  an  argument  made  by  a  gentle- 
man of  the  Senate,  a  day  or  two  before]  forbid  any 
such  supposition,  I  therefore,  discard  from  my  view 
of  the  subject,  all  arguments  deduced  from  any  such 
supposed  grant  of  power. 

The  power  to  provide  for  such  objects  in  the  new 
states,  said  Mr.  E.  results  from  the  engagements  of 
the  United  States,  under  the  old  confederation,  and 
from  that  clause  of  our  present  Constitution,  which 
declares  that  all  engagements,  entered  into  by  them, 
before  its  adoption,  shall  be  valid  against  them. 
These  engagements  were,  first,  with  the  states  which 
ceded  their  lands,  as  has  been  already  explained — 
and,  secondly,  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded 
territory,  to  whom  a  promise,  declared  to  be  irrevo- 
cable, unless  by  common  consent,  had  been  made 
in  the  ordinance  for  their  government,  "  that 
schools,  and  the  means  of  education,  should  forever 
be  encouraged." 

Congress  having  a  right  to  legislate  for  those  in 
habitants,  and  being  bound  to  provide  for  their  ad- 
mission into  the  Union,  unquestionably  must  have 
had  the  power  to  adopt  the  necessary  means  of  train- 
ing them  up  in  correct  principles,  ami,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  ordinance,  religion,  morality,  and 
knowledge,  being  necessary  to  good  government, 
and  the  happiness  of  mankind,  it  was  fit  and  proper 
that  education  should  have  been  encouraged  for 
such  purposes,  in  the  cases  referred  to. 

But,  sir,  the  original  states  having  the  exclusive 
right  to  legislate  for  themselves,  upon  such  subjects, 
and  Congress  having  no  superintendence  over  morals, 
religion,  education,  or  other  objects  of  municipal  re- 
gulation, within  the  several  states,  have  no  authori- 


25 

ty  to  interfere  with  them  in  any  manner  whate\  er. 
Such  subjects  are,  as  to  Congress,  coram  nonjudire, 
and  therefore  Ave  can  neither  legislate  upon  them  to 
their  benefit,  or  to  their  injury.  Let  us  not  forget,  sir, 
that  the  power  to  do  the  one,  admits  the  possibility, 
at  least,  of  doing  the  other,  since  all  power  is  liable 
to  abuse.  And  if  ever  the  day  shall  arrive,  when 
the  authority  of  this  government  shall  be  admitted 
to  extend  to  such  objects,  then,  adieu  to  all  state 
sovereignty.  It  will  be  completely  swallowed  up 
in  the  great  vortex  of  a  grand  consolidated  national 
government.  In  this  point  of  view,  therefore,  it  is 
evident,  there  is  no  analogy  between  those  cases, 
and  that  the  claim  of  the  original  states  can  derive 
no  possible  support  from  any  of  the  considerations 
that  have  been  referred  to. 

Let  us  now,  Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  inquire 
whether  the  claim  of  the  original  states  can  be  better 
supported  upon  any  other  principles,  that  could  have 
led  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  system  of  dispos- 
ing of  the  public  lands. 

By  this  system  all  those  lands  are  divided  »ito 
townships  of  six  miles  square.  These,  agai*j  are 
subdivided  into  thirty-six  sections  of  o»e  mile 
square.  One  of  which  is  reserved  to  bes1'*111^  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  township,  for  theaseand  sup- 
port of  a  common  school  therein.  W&>  WT>  as  all 
settlements  upon  the  public  land  f&  prohibited  un- 
der severe  penalties,  the  towns!*]*  must  be  sold  be- 
fore it  can  be  inhabited.  T^  citizens  of  the  new 
states,  therefore,  can  only  *W  the  full  benefit  of  a 
reserved  section,  upon  tAe  condition  of  purchasing 
the  remaining  thirty^fve  sections  of  the  township. 
Would  it,  (hen,  comport  with  "impartial  justice," 
to  giant  such  a  benefit  to  the  citizens  of  other  states, 
without  requiring  any  condition  whatever?  Would 
it  be  right,  sir,  to  punish  the  citizens  of  the  new 
states  for  daring  to  intrude  upon  a  reserved  section, 
without  having  previously  purchased  thirty-Jive  seer 
4 


26 

tions,  and  at  the  same  time,  to  bestow  a  section  gra- 
tuitously upon  others,  merely,  because  yon  had  al- 
towed  the  former  the  privilege  of  acquiring  one  up- 
on the  terms  I  have  mentioned?  Surely  not.  sir. 

Mr.  E.  contended  that  those  reservations  had. 
undoubtedly,  increased  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  re- 
sidue of  the  land— and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  its 
value  and  productiveness,  as  a  national  fund,  would, 
as  certainly,  be  greatly  deteriorated,  by  the  propp- 
ed donations  to  the  old  slates. 

I  acknowledge,  sir,  said  he.  that  the  proportion 
in  which  the  reserved  sections  have  enhanced  the 
value  of  the  residue,  cannot  he  ascertained  with  an\ 
thins;  like  mathematical  certain h — but  judging  from 
the  lights,  which  many  years  experience  has 
■died  upon  the  subject,  there  seems  to  he  no  reason 
to  doubt,  that,  townships,  with  those  reservation-, 
have  commanded,  and  will  continue,  to  command, 
a.  higher  price  than  they  would  sell  for  without 
them.  And  considering  how  highly  the  gentleman 
Srom  Maryland  estimates  the  value  and  advantages 
ot«ducation,  it  is  surprising  that  he  should  have  any 
doui*  of  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion.  If,  then, 
such  i/>  [\m  fac^  those  reservations  loose  all  the 
characici  0f  donations,  because  they  are  more  than 
paid  for,  iiuhe  sale  of  the  residue  of  the  land— of 
Bourse,  they  t^u'cdi  no  precedent  for  the  pure  dona- 
tions now  propped  to  he  granted. 

Again,  sir,  no  cViZ0?1  of  the  new  states  can  enjoy, 
or  derive  the  slightest  benefit  from  the  reserved  sec- 
tions, without  paying  Uv  it,  since  no  privilege,  in- 
terest, rigid,  or  title  in  thc^i,  can  Ik>  acquired,  with- 
out purchasing  land  at  a  higW  price  than  it  would 
sell  for  without  them.  This  difference,  therefore, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  yie  price  actually  paid  for 
i  lie  interest  acquired  in  them,  which  must  be  in  ex- 
act proportion  to  the  quantity  of  land  purchased. 
Even  upon  the  improbable  supposition,  that  the 
consideration  thus  given,  were  an  iuadequate  one, 


27 

still,  I  presume,  it  can  hardly  be  contended,  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Maryland,  tffat  this  cir- 
cumstance can  justify  grants  in  favour  of  the  citizens 

of  other  states,  without  any  consideration  at  all. 

But,  sir,  settlement,  a  'well  as  purchase,  is  an 
indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  right  of  enjoying 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  reservations.  Its  import- 
ance to  the  Union,  may  well  be  imagined,  by  con- 
trasting the  present  value  of  the  national  domain. ,witb 
what  would  probably  have  been  its  value  had  it  re- 
mained to  this  time,  waste  and  uninhabited.  And  this 
is  certainly,  but  a  fair  and  just  view  of  the  subject; 
for  if  the  "new  states  are  to  be  charged  with  the  re- 
served sections,  they,  surely,  ought  to  have  credtf 
for  the  value  which  their  settlements  and  improve- 
ments have  imparted  to  the  residue. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  with  the  settlement  of  th«  coun- 
try its  improvements  mu^  progress.  These,  by 
multiplying  the  comforts/ conveniences,  and  advan- 
tages of  a  residence  in  &  will  continue  to  render  the 
vacant  residum  m*re  desirable,  more  valuable 
and  available,  till  the  whole  of  it  shall  be  disposed 
of.  The  policy  therefore,  which  has  hitherto  re- 
quired the  condition  of  settlement,  must  continue  to 
prevail  so  long  as  the  Hiked  States  retain  any  of 
those  lands,  and. tie  devious  of  disposing  of  them 
to  the  best  advantage,  Bat  this  requisite  also,  is  to 
be  dispensed  with  iu  favour  of  the  citizens  of  the 
original  states,  without  requiring  any  thing  whate* 
ver  of  Uiem  to  counterbalance  it.  Would  this  be 
••'fair  and  impartial  justice?" 

According  to  any  correct  view  of  the  subject,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  citizens  of  the  original  states,  par- 
ticipate largely  in  the  benefits  of  the  present  reser- 
vations for  the  support  of  education,  jlui  those  of 
the  new  states  can  have  no  such  correspondent  in- 
terest in  the  proposed  donations.  Those  are  intend- 
ed for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  former.  Nor  is 
any  thing  proposed  in  favour  of  the  latter.  a«  a  conn 


28 

terpoise,  or  equivalent,  for  this  want  of  reciprocity 
and  glaring  inequality — and  surely,  they  who  have 
reposed  in  perfect  safety,  under  the  shade  of  their 
own  vines  and  tig  trees,  at  their  native  homes,  arc 
not  entitled  to  be  placed  in  a  more  eligible  situation 
in  relation  to  the  national  domain,  than  those  who 
braved  the  dangers,  encountered  the  difficulties,  and 
submitted  to  all  the  privations  incident  to  the  settle- 
ment of  it. 

It  is  admitted,  sir,  that  one  of  the  principal  ob- 
jects of  the  reservations  was  to  encourage  emigra- 
tion, and  the  policy  of  the  measure,  in  that  respect, 
is  not  questioned.     Yet,  it  is  contended,  that  the 
right  of  the  original  states  to  an  equal  portion  of  the 
puMic  lands,  for  the  support  of  education,  within 
their  respective  limits,  grew  out  of  the  adoption  of 
that  measure,  is  coeval  with  it,  and  is  not  at  all  im- 
paired by  the  delay  in  asserting  it.     But,  really,  sir, 
it  appears  lo  me  that  those  cases  not  only,  do  not  rest 
upon  the  same  foundation,  but  that  the*  latter  is  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with,  and  calculated  to  defeat  the 
very  policy  of  the  former.     To  avlopt  a  measure  to 
promote  emigration,  and  at  the  samp,  time  to  grant 
equal  advantages  to  all  those  who  might  not  choose 
to  emigrate,  would  be  very  much  like  a  sport  which 
many  of  us  have  witnessed  in  our  younger  days,  of 
building  up  with  one  hand  for  the  mere  pleasure  of 
knocking  down  with  the  other.     No  one  could  be 
attracted  to  a  remote  wilderness,  by  advantages 
which  he  could  equally  enjoy  without  going  there, 
In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  policy  of  those  mea- 
sures is  so  directly  hostile  to  each  other,  that  the 
one  must  necessarily  exclude  the  other. 

But,  sir,  with  whatever  objects  or  motives  the 
present  system  of  disposing  of  the  public  lands  may 
have  been  adopted,  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
though  now  complained  of,  as  if  it  had  been  the  de- 
cision of  some  partial,  unjust,  corrupt,  foreign  tribu- 
nal, it  was  a  measure  of  the  original,  now  complain- 


29 

Jug,  states  themselves — and  unless  communities* 
when  the  sole  arbiters  in  their  own  cases,  are  infi- 
nitely more  liable  than  individuals  to  loose  sight  of 
their  interest  altogether,  and  be  unjust  to  them- 
selves, it  must  have  been  adopted  for  their  own  be- 
nefit, and  fully  have  they  realized  all  the  advanta- 
ges anticipated  from  it.  It  could  not  have  been  in- 
tended to  operate  upon  persons  who  had  gone  to  the 
public  domain,  if  there  were  any  such;  but  only  upon 
those  who  could  be  induced  to  go  there.  All  the 
advantages  and  inducements  which  it  tendered, 
were  then,  constantly  have  been,  and  still  are  offer- 
ed alike  to  the  free  acceptance  of  every  citizen  of 
the  Union,  and  consequently  it  was  in  its  origin, 
has  continued  to  be,  and  still  is,  equally  fair  and 
just,  in  relation  to  all  of  them.  Nothing,  therefore, 
can  be  more  unreasonable,  than  to  consider  those 
reservations  as  partial  donations  to  states  that  had 
no  existence,  or  to  a  territory  unpeopled,  but  by 
savages,  to  be  subdued  and  expelled. 

Permit  me  here,  sir,  to  avail  myself  of  the  exam- 
ple of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia,  in 
referring  to  that  portion  of  the  national  domain 
which  lies  upon  the  Pacific  Ocean.  In  its  present 
situation,  as  a  source  of  revenue,  it  is  not  now,  nor 
can  it  ever  be,  of  any  manner  of  use  to  us.  As  was 
correctly  stated  by  the  gentleman  to  whom  I  refer, 
a  project  for  establishing  a  colony  upon  it,  has  al- 
ready engaged  the  deliberations  of  one  branch  of 
the  National  Legislature.  Suppose,  then,  that 
Congress,  with  a  view  to  revenue,  to  commercial 
advantages,  to  the  security  of  our  traders,  and  to 
prevent  the  encroachments  of  rival  powers,  should 
determine  to  colonize  this  section  of  our  territory, 
and  for  this  purpose  should,  with  universal  consent 
and  approbation,  tender  to  every  citizen  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  any  inducements  whatever  to  emigrate 
thither:  For  whose,  but  the  benefit  of  the  Union, 
would  this  measure  be  adopted?  How,  and  in  fa- 


30 

vour  of  whom,  could  it  be   considered  unjust  and 

partial,  even  before  tlir  terms  of  it  had  been  accept- 
ed by  a  solitary  individual?  It' lair  and  just  in  its 
origin,  how  could  it  become  otherwise,  merely,  by 
effecting  the  very  objects  it  was  intended  to  accom- 
plish? Could  mere  inducements  to  emigration  in 
this  case,  .be  considered  as  originating  a  claim  to 
equal  advantages  in  favour  of  all  those  who  might 
not  choose  to  emigrate?  How  wonderfully  efficient, 
sir,  would  be  a  measure  for  such  a  purpose,  which 
should  promise  to  every  citizen  the  same  benefits  for 
staying  at  home,  with  which  it  intended  to  tempt 
Ids' removal  to  a  distant  unsettled  country,  through 
a  trackless  wilderness  of  vast  extent.  As  well,  sir, 
might  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  now  de- 
mand of  you  a  quarter  section  of  land,  because  you 
gave  that  quantity  to  the  soldiers  of  your  late  army. 
Nor  could  any  thing  be  more  outrageously  unjust, 
than  to  promise  your  fellow  citizens  a  gratuity  for 
settling  upon  the  public  land,  and  then  to  make  them 
pay  for  it,  by  deducting  its  full  value  from  their  due 
proportion  of  a  common  stock,  as  is  proposed  to  be 
done  by  the  proposition  upon  your  table. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  E.  the  claim  of  the  original  states 
has  been  particularly  insisted  upon,  because,  in  the 
encouragement  which  they  themselves  afforded  to 
emigration,  for  the  sake  of  their  own  interest  too, 
Ihey  have,  forsooth,  lost  a  part  of  their  population 
and  wealth. 

An  argument  so  sectional,  and  anti-national  in  its 
character,  surely  comes  with  a  bad  grace  from  those 
who,  with  a  perseverance  threatening  the  most  dis- 
astrous consequences  to  our  common  country,  at  a 
most  awful  crisis,  insisted  that  those  lands  should 
be  ceded,  settled,  and  formed  into  separate  states, 
for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  debts,  promoting  the 
interest,  and  advancing  the  security  of  the  Union, 
How,  sir,  could  any  one  of  those  objects  be  accom- 
plished without  disposing  of  the  land?  Who  would 


31 

have  bought  it  without  a  view  to  its  settlement  by 
himself  or  others?  And  by  whom,  but  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  was  it  intended  to  be  settled?  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  any  of  the  states  could, 
for  a  moment,  have  yielded  to  a  policy,  so  contract- 
ed and  selfish,  as  to  have  wished  to  have  exempted 
themselves  from  the  disadvantages  common  to  all 
of  them  in  consequence  of  those  cessions;  or  to  have 
enjoyed  the  full  benefits  of  them,  at  the  exclusive 
cost  of  others.  No  state,  in  fact,  would  have  sub- 
mitted, or  would  now  submit,  to  the  exclusion  of 
her  citizens,  from  the  right  of  emigrating  to  the  pub- 
lic lands.  The  original  states,  therefore,  cannot, 
justly,  claim  an  equivalent  for  a  privilege  which 
they  themselves  secured  to  their  own  citizens,  and 
which  they  would  not  now  be  so  unjust  as  to  relin- 
quish, were  it  in  their  power  to  do  so. 

The  motive,  sir,  to  encourage  emigration,  being 
the  advantages  expected  to  be  derived  from  it,  these 
must  have  been  the  only  equivalent  contemplated 
for  any  encouragement  given  to  it  The  benefits, 
therefore,  offered  to  emigrants,  depending  upon  a 
condition,  from  which  the  states  expected  corres- 
pondent advantages,  at  least,  whenever  that  condi- 
tion was  fulfilled,  the  consideration  of  those  bene- 
fits was  fully  discharged,  and  no  other  equivalent 
can,  in  reason  or  justice,  be  demanded. 

Nor  have  the  original  states  any  reason  to  com- 
plain, that  their  citizens  have  exercised,  and  enjoy- 
ed, the  benefits  of  the  privilege  thus  secured  to 
them,  for  such  were,  not  only  the  necessary  and 
intended  consequences  of  their  own  measure;  but 
they  were  of  the  very  essence  of  the  contracts  upon 
which  the  public  lands  were  ceded.  Sir,  you  took 
them  upon  those  terms,  "  for  better,  for  worse,"  and 
have  infinitely  less  reason  to  complain,  than  the 
man  who  sought  to  be  absolved  from  his  matrimo- 
nial obligations  because  he  had  found  his  wife  all 
of  the  worse,  and  none  of  the  better.     You   have* 


32 

realized  important  advantages,  in  the  increased  va- 
lue and  utility  of  the  land — the  improved  condition 
of  your  population — the  development  of  the  re- 
sources of  your  country — the  extension  of  your 
commerce  and  navigation — the  augmentation  of 
your  revenue — the  support  of  public  credit — and 
the  security  of  your  borders. 

These  advantages,  however,  are  much  less  the 
result  of  your  own  liberality,  than  of  the  bold,  en- 
terprizing,  adventurous  and  aspiring  character  of 
your  population,  and  the  superior  liberality  of  some 
of  the  states  whose  lands  adjoined  yours.  No  go- 
vernment, 1  will  venture  to  say,  has  ever  yet  esta- 
blished a  distant  colony,  similarly  situated,  upon 
terms  more  advantageous  to  itself.  None  has  ever 
given  less  to  emigrants,  or  exacted  more  from  them. 

England,  France  and  Spain,  have  all  held  a  part 
of  our  present  domain,  and  by  their  superior  regard 
to  the  law  of  uature,  and  the  Divine  will,  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  those  western  lands,  whilst  they  held 
them,  have  exhibited  a  contrast  between  monarchies 
and  the  freest  government  in  the  world,  which  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  is  by  no  means  favorable  to  the  latter. 

Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  E.  had  Pennsylvania, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Kentucky,  demand- 
ed two  dollars  per  acre  in  good  money,  as  the  mi- 
nimum price  of  their  lands,  and  subjected  all  intru- 
ders to  legal  prosecution,  and  removal  by  military 
force,  much  of  your  great  northwestern  territory, 
now  so  thickly  populated — so  highly  cultivated  and 
improved — so  richly  embellished  with  cities,  towns 
and  villages — every  where  exhibiting  monuments 
of  the  advance  of  science,  the  progress  of  the  arts, 
and  the  multiplication  of  the  comforts  and  elegancies 
of  civilized  life,  would  still  have  been  a  waste  un- 
cultivated wilderness.  The  territory  of  those  states 
heing  unoccupied,  yours  could  never  have  been  in- 
habited. They  therefore,  by  the  population  which 
they  attracted  to  theirs,  and  by  their  wars  to  main- 


tain  it.  expellod  the  savages  from  a  large  portion  of 
yours,  and  thereby  contributed  more  to  its  settle- 
ment, than  all  that  yon  have  ever  done  towards  it. 

Yet,  sir,  some  of  the  states  seem  to  think  they 
have  had  a  hard  bargain  in  taking  the  land  at  all, 
because  they  have  lost  a  part  of  their  population  by 
it.  Hut,  sir,  had  it  been  retained  by  England, 
France,  or  Spain,  it  is  by  no  means  certain',  that 
those  stales  would  have  lost  less.  Had  it  remain- 
ed the  property  of  Virginia,  owing  to  her  superior 
liberality  in  such  cases,  as  is  evinced  by  her  uniform 
conduct,  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  they 
would  have  lost  more,  and  gained  nothing. 

I  know,  sir,  said  Mr.  E.  it  has  been  very  gravely 
asserted  by  one  most  respectable  state,  that  if  the 
original  states  had  been  governed  by  a  selfish  poli- 
cy, they  would  have  thrown  every  impediment  in 
the  way  of  emigration  to  the  national  domain.  This 
however  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  very  consist- 
ent with  the  motives  which  induced  them,  so  zeal- 
ously to  insist  upon  its  being  surrendered  as  a  na- 
tional fund;  and  besides  the  breach  of  faith  involv- 
ed in  such  a  policy,  it  would  have  been  just  about 
as  rational  as  the  Japanese  mode  of  duelling,    in 
which  one  man   rips  open  his  own  bowels  for   the 
pleasure  of  imposing  an  obligation  on  ano'her  to 
follow  his  example.     None  could  have  lost  more, 
or  gained  less,  by  such  a  measure,  than  those  very 
states:  and  little  can  be  known  of  the  immense  tracts 
of  land  in  the  western  country,  which  yet  remain  to 
be  settled,  if  it  can  be  supposed  that  any  measure  of 
tl.at  kind  could  have  had  any  other  material  effe 
upon  emigration,  than  to  have  changed  its  direction 
and  swelled  the  population  of  some  of  the  other 
western  states.     It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  11 
ducements  afforded  to  emigration  by  the  original 
slates,   have  neither  been  so  purely  gratuitous,  nor 
its  eil'ects,  which  they  so  deeply  deplore,  so  exclu 
sively  the  results  of  their  liberal  forbearance  to  im- 
pede it,  as  seems  to  have  been  imagined. 
5 


M 

In  tke  enumeration  of  the  grievances  and  injuries 

for  which  they  demand  indemnification,  we  find 
them  complaining  that  the  sale  of  their  western 
lands  "  has  prevented  an  increase  of  the  price  of 
lands  in  the  Atlantic  states,"  though  they  have 
not  a  single 'acre  of  land  of  their  own  to  dispose 
of  in  those  Regretting,  exceedingly,  sir, 

that  my  remaining  strength"  docs  not  admit  of  my 
entering  into  a  full  investigation  of  this  singular 
ground  of  complaint,  I  will  barely  remark,  that  the 
high  price  of  land,  so  much  desired,  can  only  result 
from  a  density  of  population,  from  which  much  de- 
pendancc  and  wretchedness  would  he  inseparable; 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  our  own,  or 
any  other  country,  to  authorise  the  opinion,   that  it 
would  he  mere  auspicious  to  the  interest,  and  hap- 
piness, of  the  great  mass  of  our  population,  or  to  the 
preservation  of  the  free  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment— that  its  tendency  would  be  to  advance  the 
interest  of  the  few,  that  have  land  to  sell,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  many,   who  have  it  to  buy — and  that, 
instead  of  impeding,   it  would  he  calculated  to  in- 
crer.se  emigration;  since,  in  proportion  to  the  diffi- 
culty of  obtaining  lands   in  the  old   states,   there 
would  he  additional  motives  to  seek  it  elsewhere. 
Mr.  Kd  wards  here  remarked,  that,  being  himself 
greatly  l'aiigned,  ami  fearing  he  had  exhausted  the 
patience  of  the  Senate,  he  should  be  compelled  to 
omit,  or  postpone  to  a  future  sta^ e  of  the  discussion, 
other  views  of  the  subject,  which  he  was  anxious  to 
present  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate. 

I  ha-  said  he,  contrasted  the  relative  situa- 

tion of  the  ci  is  of  the  new  and  old  states,  in  re- 
lation to  the  proposed  appropriation.  I  had  in- 
tended to  have  presented  similar  contrasts  between 
the  claims  of  the  new  and  old  states  themselves — 
and  between  the  grants  made  to  the  former,  and 
those  proposed  to  be  made  to  the  latter.  I  had  also, 
intended  to  have  shown,   that,  even  admitting  the 


35 

principle,  contended  for  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Maryland,  the  contemplated  apportion- 
ment, and  distribution  of  the  land,  would  be  mani- 
festly unequal  and  unjust.     That  the  demand  on 
the  part  of  the  original  states  of  an  equivalent  for 
the  «  particular''  advantages,  Which  the  new  states 
derive  from  the  present  system  of  disposing  of  the 
public  lands,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Union,  is  incon- 
sistent with  every  idea  of  national  government;  and 
that  the  latter  states  might,  with  equal   propriety, 
demand  an  equivalent  for  the  "  particular"  advan- 
tages, which  the  former  derive  from  the  vast  expen- 
diture of  public  money  within  their  limits;  or  from 
any  other  measure  of  national  policy. 

I  find,  however,  1  must  content  myself  with 
remarking,  that  you  have  granted  to  the  new  states 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  naked  trust — to  execute, 
your  own  previous  obligations — or  to  promote  your 
future  interest.  80  far  as  the  public  lauds  had  been 
sold,  the  right  to  the  reserved  sections  had  vested 
in  the  inhabitants  of  the  respective  townships,  and 
did  not  depend  at  all  for  its  validity  upon  the  grants 
to  the  states,  for  you  neither  could  have  withheld 
nor  impaired  it,  nor  can  those  states  now  do  so. 
So  far  as  the  lands  have  not  been  sold,  no  right  to 
the  reserved  sections  has  vested,  or  can  vest,  either 
in  those  states  or  the  inhabitants  thereof,  but  upon 
conditions  hereafter  to  be  performed,  highly  condu- 
cive to  your  own  interest. 

Suppose,  sir,  said  Mr.  E.  the  new  states  had  re- 
fused to  become  your  trustees,  you  would  not,  on 
that  account,  have  changed  your  present  system  of 
disposing  of  the  public  lands:  and  you  could  no! 
have  sold  a  single  reserved  sec  lion,  in  any  township 
in  which  a  solitary  sale  of  eighty  acres  only  had 
been  made.  What  then  have  you  given  to  the  new 
states?  Nothing  that  you  could  or  would  have  re- 
tained. 


■Hi 

But  in  whatever  Ugh  I  those  grautsare  to  be  view- 
ed, they  are  founded  upon  compacts,  which  nejthei 
liarty  is  now  at  liberty  to  revoke  annul,  or  disre- 
gard. On  the  part  of  tlio  new  states,  they  have,  I 
think,  manifested  great  liberality  in  giving  a  full 
equivalent  for  advantages  that  either  would  not,  or 
could  not  have  been  withheld  from  them,  if  thej 
h  d  refused  to  give  any  thing.  The  state  which  'l 
have  the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent,  has,  probably, 
had  a  pretty  hard  bargain  in  agreeing  to  forbear  to 
tax  the  lands  of  individuals,  and  in  the  consequent 
I      le  ed  upon  her  own  citizens,  for  all  the 

consider;  he  received.     She  agreed  to  exempt 

from  all  taxation,  three  millions  five  hundred  thou- 
saa  1  :  pea  of  military  bounty  Ian  la,  lor  t lore  years 
after  lanation  of  the  grants;  and  at  leas?  thir- 

ty millions  of  acres  of  the  public  land,  for  five  years. 
after  the  sale  of  it— which,  according  to  the  state 
taxation, 

Aja  ttrsr  rate,  would  be  equal  to  8  3,210.000 

Second  rate  -  2,250,000 

TMnl  rate 1,650.000 

And  at  the  average  rale  -        -        2.-370.0OO 

If,  then,  sir,  any  of  the  old  states  insist  upon 
having  as  much  land  as  they  contend  lias  been 
granted  to  Illinois,  let  them  first  purchase  the  same 
quantity  of  land,  which  she  either  has  purchased, 
or  is  bound  to  purchase,  to  perfect  her  title  to  the 
supposed  grants — and  let  them  also  agree  to  pay 
the  taxes  upon  the  same  quantity  of  land,  which 
has  exempted  from  taxation — and  for  the  same 
length  of  tiui! — or  talk  no  more  about  "fair  and 
impartial  justic 


